Edit
Storyline
Individualistic and idealistic architect Howard Roark is expelled from college because his designs fail to fit with existing architectural thinking. He seems unemployable but finally lands a job with like-minded Henry Cameron, however within a few years Cameron drinks himself to death, warning Roark that the same fate awaits unless he compromises his ideals. Roark is determined to retain his artistic integrity at all costs. Written by
Col Needham <col@imdb.com>
Plot Summary
|
Plot Synopsis
Taglines:
Monumental Best-Seller! Towering Screen Triumph!
See more »
Edit
Did You Know?
Trivia
King Vidor was Rand's personal choice for the movie's director, as was its star Gary Cooper.
See more »
Goofs
Howard shatters Dominique's slightly damaged fireplace slab with a chisel and says, "Now it's broken and has to be replaced." When Dominique asks Howard if he can replace it, the next shot of Howard shows him kneeling in front of the not-yet shattered marble slab.
See more »
Quotes
Roger Enright:
No madam I have nothing to say about this building. God gave you eyes and a mind which you're to use. If you fail to do so the loss is yours, not mine.
Female Party Guest:
But don't you want to convince me?
Roger Enright:
Is there any reason why that should be my concern?
See more »
Connections
Referenced in
Identity Thief (2013)
See more »
I fear that giving Ayn Rand full control over what was said on screen turned what might have been an interesting film into nothing more than an extension of her book. Now that might sound a good thing, but film and book are two different media that rarely sit comfortably with one another. Strangely it is this refusal to compromise, an important point in the book, that is this films biggest flaw.
While the acting is fine, aside from Coopers and Neal's in my opinion, the dialogue is stilted and stands out of place on screen, almost to the point of preaching rather than aiding the development of the story.
This might be simply a sign of the times, after all this was made in 1948, but this film stands out in my mind as perhaps the pinnacle of 'straight from the book to film' type of writing.
The film isn't subtle by any means, its point is pushed down your throat time and time again, the price of having your writer push an agenda.
It seems like every other line is a speech rather than a genuine conversation, with constant swings back and forth from over the top melodrama to meaningless contrite phrases.
As a book, without the aid of background music and the delivery of a host of different actors I'm sure this works fine, but as a film it just becomes noise with all meaning lost.